I have previously discussed the curiosity of California’s Democratic leaders in Congress leading the fight for massive warrantless surveillance and attacks on privacy. California Senator Dianne Feinstein has long been viewed as hazard to civil liberties from her knowledge of the torture program to consistent support for the expansion of a security state system. Feinstein is now back in that ignoble role this week, fighting to limit the meaning of journalist to prevent bloggers and others from being able to claim protections from surveillance or compelled testimony. Illinois Senator Dick Durbin has joined Feinstein in seeking to define most people out of protections for media.
The irony is the Feinstein wants to add the limiting language to a Media Shield Law that has already been riddled with exceptions and holes by the Obama Administration. Feinstein is again serving as the agent for those who want to expand government powers — in this case under the guise of a bill purportedly limiting such powers.
Feinstein came out last week by insisting that bloggers and Internet writers are not “real reporters” despite the fact that most Americans now get their news from such sites. She wants to limit the term to people who are “a salaried agent” of a media company like the New York Times or ABC News. Thus, students in media graduate programs and bloggers would not qualify. She is concerned that the law could be used by whistleblowers and others to expose unlawful conduct and then claim protections from government investigations or attacks.
She does not of course define what constitutes a salary. Would this include freelancers? I am paid by USA Today per column. Is that a salary? Is a media professor salaried as a journalist when he is paid by his school but writes in a university publication?
This blog is ranked as one of the top most visited legal blogs in the world. We have a larger audience than columns associated with various newspapers, including the Legal Times. We produce five to seven new stores each weekday. We run new stories over the weekend. We reach millions of readers each year. Most local newspapers have circulations of less than 15,000. Does it not matter how large your readership is but rather whether you receive money for the work? If so, we would have to add advertising to generate revenue to qualify while a small town newspaper with a fraction of our readership would automatically qualify. There are legitimate questions about what constitutes a journalist for constitutional or statutory protections, but Feinstein is adopting a criteria clearly designed to exclude most writers today on politics and government.
As we have discussed, this effort is part of an overall effort to strip whistleblowers and journalists of status as the Administration seeks to prosecute them. Assange is the best example. He is not a journalist but rather just an Assange.
Feinstein’s limit would be added to litany of exceptions and holes in the bill. For example, the law would allow Justice Department officials to delay notice for a period of 45 days and then ask for an extension of an additional 45 days. That would mean almost 100 days of surveillance of reporters like the controversial cases of the Obama Administration.
Feinstein would add to these limits by excluding writers for outfits like Wikileaks or even recognized reporters who are writing for blogs without direct compensation. It is part of the continued effort to distract the public with measures meant to look like reforms but actually reaffirm the power of the government like President Obama’s highly criticized “reforms” announced last Friday. Rather than limit the government, it would now become a formal exclusion of the vast majority of people covering the government from protections. This is particularly a concern with the rising criticism of mainstream media in yielding to demands of the White House in covering stories like the Snowden affair or actively mocking critics of the government. We are often informed of these programs or developments by the foreign media or the bloggers that Feinstein wants to strip of protections. It is particularly ironic coming from the Senator representing the state with the largest number of bloggers in the country. Instead of their interests, Feinstein is representing the interests of the ever-expanding system of security state offices and officials.
The government is most concerned not with traditional media, but the power of sites like Wikileaks or bloggers cover every aspect of their work. This is one reason why mainstream media is losing market share to the blogs. Readers are increasingly seeking alternatives to the source of their information. That certainly comes with a risk. There are many unreliable Internet sites and there is a great deal of bias on such sites. However, if one is to define a journalist, it would seem obvious that you would base the define on what they are actually doing as opposed to the arbitrary criteria of whether anyone is paying them directly for the work.
The problem is that the mainstream media views this emerging new media as a threat and many may privately welcome the exclusion of the competition. That would leave no one to advocate for bloggers on the Hill or in the main press. For that you would have to go to Internet and the very blogs that Feinstein is targeting in this legislation.
The most effective shield under this law will be for the government in stripping claims of protection and allowing long periods of surveillance of reporters. These exceptions and Feinstein’s effort (with Durbin) make the shield law a Trojan horse bill. To paraphrase an ancient adage for civil libertarians today, beware of Democratic leaders bearing gifts.
I’m one of millions of full time American citizen journalist the Demo/Repub party Nazis want to get rid of/stop.
Some don’t like what I post & that’s fine. Often though some after a few years figure out what & why I was writing about certain subjects in the 1st place.
I’ve got 4 decades involved in this subject matter below & never received a dime for dealing with it.
But this is a subject those American Hatin Trash don’t want out to the gen pop, well to damn bad!
**The Fukushima disaster is likely to get far worse, if you can believe that**
**Remember: Governments can lie about the national debt, health care costs, inflation and unemployment, but they cannot lie about radiation for very long. Sooner or later the physics of it all simply cannot be denied.**
http://www.prisonplanet.com/fukushima-now-in-state-of-emergency-leaking-300-tons-of-radioactive-water-into-the-ocean-daily.html
Feinstein was on television last night. She and her husband are trying to make deals on buying up closed Post Offices around the country. Boy did she look OLD.
Dickyboy Durbin needs a new turbin.
The eighty year old multi millionaire Feinstein does not understand the First thing about the First Amendment. Any person can petition their government for redress of grievances. We can wear a button on the shirt, carry a sign on Petition Square out in front of the Capital Bldg in Sacramento or Washington DC or other ways. Other ways includes communicating on the internet with like minded souls who we wish to influence our Legislators. We can influence most legislators unless they are multi millionaires and 80 years old, senile and uneducated. The First Amendment does not define or mention a “journalist”. The free press is not limited in any constitutional text to something printed on an 18th century printing press set up by
Ben Franklin. Feinstein went in dumb and come out dumb too. It figures. She hails from California.
Following Elaine’s post at 1:59pm to this incredible story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&src=un&feedurl=http://json8.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/index.jsonp&
Max-1: Many of us aren’t surprised that the Executive Branch (which includes the Department of Justice) and Congress have little regard for following their oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land (Article VI of the U.S. Constitution).
What is outrageous is that federal judges (Judicial Branch) and most (not all) major Press organizations aren’t providing adequate checks and balances on the Executive and Legislative branches of government. This is the top duty of any judge – to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton had some wonderful and timeless wisdom on the role of judges in Federalist #78 that is very relevant today. Basically legal precedence only matters if it is “constitutional” legislation passed by Congress. If the legislation is blatantly unconstitutional, legal precedence is subordinate to constitutionality.
If the U.S. Constitution (a wartime charter) is fundamentally flawed or needs updating – we amend the Constitution – we don’t violate it. In the “Articles” section of the Constitution there are clauses that deal with exigent circumstances and the suspension of habeas corpus. Most habeas corpus rights should have been restored by 2002 in my view, there wasn’t major chaos or anarchy in any American city in 2002 – not talking about legal precedence but constitutionality.
Glad to hear that you have something good to say about Schumer on this score, so he is not a total loss.
If you get a paycheck, then you are more likely to be intimidate-able. Particularly if your paycheck is for being a reporter. OTOH, if your day job is as a plumber, or barista, then not so much.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Why do people listen to Alt news outlets like infowars, here’s why from last week.
Beat That S.O.B.!
**Max-1 1, August 13, 2013 at 2:10 pm
LAWYERS/ATTORNEYS
In the first interview I posted from DN, what would you do if your client said to you, “I have this situation… er legal matter… that I must discuss but if I discuss this, even with you, I’ll be thrown in jail.” ?
**
Just post everything all over the Internet 1st for their personal safety & to make sure the info gets out.
Better have a decent plan in advance.
** Hastings
assassination
On this Tuesday, August 13 edition of the Alex Jones Show, Alex covers Michael Hastings and the story he was writing on CIA director John Brennan prior to the award-winning journalist’s death on June 18 of this year. Alex looks at the latest on Snowden and new revelations about the CIA’s arms shipment to al-Qaeda in Syria. On today’s show, Alex talks with Press for Truth filmmaker Dan Dicks and Joe Biggs, who will be in-studio. Sgt. Joe Biggs was a friend of the late Michael Hastings and was one of the last people to be in contact with him prior to this death. Alex also talks with Dr. Seth Farber, a writer, social critic, and dissident psychologist who will break down the DSM-5, the American Psychiatric Association’s manual on mental disorders and suicide.**
Infowars show dovetails right into Feinstein’s treason against our nation as JT presents in part here.
Joe Biggs piece just finished.
It appears Hastings was trying to warn us citizens people like Feinstein/Graham/McCain/King/Obama are out to either kill or arrest anyone not going along with their mordern Fascist take over.
Knowing the history of tyranical govts, inside or outside of govt, everyone sooner or later figures out they have no choice but to resist in whatever way one can.
There is an interesting situation that happened in Virginia that civil libertarians may want to pay close attention to:
Essentially most Americans don’t care because they can’t see “cause & effect – they don’t see how it harms them or their family or friends.
Recently in Virginia most voters could care less about drones until government officials were found to be flying drones of hunt clubs. Almost immediately members of the Virginia General Assembly (including Republicans) were creating bills to protect civil liberties.
If you want to fix this we need to show the average voter how it harms them or many simply won’t care.
LAWYERS/ATTORNEYS
In the first interview I posted from DN, what would you do if your client said to you, “I have this situation… er legal matter… that I must discuss but if I discuss this, even with you, I’ll be thrown in jail.” ?
Ross,
What laws are left?
Well, be sure to know Senator Difi will vociferously defend the Right of Senators to not be arrested while in Office…
I guess the shorter list for Senator Difi is:
What freedoms do you support and defend as outlined by your Oath of Office?
I bet she stumbles right out the gate…
So if the Government has gagged you from discussing what potentially could be a systematic violation of our First and Fourth Amendments… wouldn’t that go straight to intent? The obsessive need to cover up a crime committed on a broad scale, done repeatedly over a course of time?
I mean, isn’t the Government sounding like that man that kidnapped a few women for 10+ years, keep them chained up, had a child or two with them all the while insisting the women wanted it, liked it, in fact?
CarolMae, Just can’t get out of that loop, can you.
The consent of the governed…
… Many in Despotic Central (D.C. to the lay folk) say, “Let them eat cake”.
Edward Snowden To NY Times: Media ‘Abdicated’ Role Post-9/11
The Huffington Post
By Jack Mirkinson
Posted: 08/13/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/edward-snowden-ny-times-media_n_3748496.html
Excerpt;
The New York Times secured an interview with Edward Snowden for the first time since he outed himself as the leaker of NSA documents in June.
The brief Q-and-A appeared Tuesday alongside a lengthy profile of Laura Poitras, the filmmaker who, along with Glenn Greenwald, has been the journalist most at the center of the Snowden saga. Both pieces were written by reporter Peter Maas.
In one portion of the interview, Snowden talked about why he turned to Poitras and Greenwald, instead of the Times or the Washington Post:
“After 9/11, many of the most important news outlets in America abdicated their role as a check to power — the journalistic responsibility to challenge the excesses of government — for fear of being seen as unpatriotic and punished in the market during a period of heightened nationalism. From a business perspective, this was the obvious strategy, but what benefited the institutions ended up costing the public dearly. The major outlets are still only beginning to recover from this cold period.”
So in other words, the only Freedoms DiFi respects and defends are:
1) The freedom to financially afford your freedoms
2) The freedom to lie under Oath to her face